[Mithaldu]

Edit: After some thinking: Yes, i agree this is a dark pattern and MS needs to be held accountable to it accordingly. My only disagreement with the current direction of discourse is that people are not saying "MS manipulated me into an update", which is the truth, but "Windows updated on its own and there was nothing anyone could do", which isn't.

--

They didn't change it, it was always that way. People only realized just now that it does that.

Also, please do take a look at the window people X out of and then are surprised about: http://i.imgur.com/aWFX0vc.png It states clearly that it is going to happen, and when it is going happen, and how to cancel it. The only way a user would be surprised about that is if they didn't read the message in the first place.

[swang]

Surely you're joking? "Click here to change your upgrade schedule" is in such tiny font of course no one will see it.

If Microsoft cared about its users, that option would be way bigger than it is.

Edit: They purposely put in all that information because they know people won't want to read through all that. That dialog is purposely designed to trick users because they've been taught that if they want to cancel, hit the "X" button, not find the tiny link to change the scheduling of this thing you don't understand.

[ams6110]

Charitably, Microsoft learned from Windows 95 and Windows NT that if you expect users to upgrade on their own they won't do it. So now they are forcing the issue, albeit with bad execution.

[CamperBob2]

Really? I don't see a lot of people running Windows 95 or Windows NT.

The lesson Microsoft should have learned is that if they come out with a genuinely-improved version of Windows, the user base will adopt it in good time without being herded like sheep.

[5ilv3r]

My father told me a computer that I built for one of his customers running windows 95 almost 20 years ago is still running and being used daily.

I don't think they would like windows 10. :p

[CamperBob2]

That computer is probably pretty secure, too, because sometimes security by obscurity really does work.

[5ilv3r]

That doesn't apply here. Obscurity and obsolescence are different. It's a totally normal 486. Nothing weird about it.

[Mithaldu]

It is in the normal font size for that system, compare it with the window title. The "this is recommended" and the date are the only enlarged bits in that window.

> all that

I don't know about you, but to me and most anyone i know the amount of text in that window is miniscule. Difference in perspective i guess.

As for what users are taught to: What i and everyone else i know have been taught to is "Read everything the computer prints on the screen unless you know exactly what it is."

[swang]

if you were designing that dialog box to actually let users control whether or not they could upgrade to win 10 and made sure they made the right choice, is that how you would have designed the dialog box? again the dialog box microsoft designed was not to help out the users. it was to trick them into upgrading win 10.

the dialog is purposely built to trick users into clicking on the X, something users have been taught to do and what has always by default been, "cancel, don't do whatever this dialog box tried asking you to do."

also, when is the last time you saw a dialog box with that much text? which dialog boxes have you been reading exactly? even so, it's not as though the amount of text telling the user absolves them from their dark design patterns to trick users. microsoft did the bare minimum to let users know and changed the way the ui works by having the close button _agree_ to the changes rather than canceling them.

[Mithaldu]

You have a good point.

And to be fair, the misreporting and misrepresentation of the reality in the discourse about windows upgrades caused my pendulum to swing too far in the other direction.

MS is engaging in dark patterns, and that is what needs to be stated clearly, and directly, not the sensationalist, and wrong "windows updated automatically and there was nothing i could do".

> having the close button _agree_ to the changes rather than canceling them.

See that kind of thing is wrong. No such thing happens, period. The window tells you that at the date a change was scheduled, and gives you the options of "change", "cancel", "do now" or "dismiss the information". Closing it does not agree to anything, the agreement was taken implicitly before the window even opened. You're opted in, and given an option to opt out. And that is the dark pattern here.

[sundvor]

> You're opted in, and given an option to opt out. And that is the dark pattern here.

Bingo, nailed it.

[sundvor]

Just came across how you get "signed up" for the upgrade - see the main screenshot here:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3078663/windows/microsoft-den...

That's definitely a textbook case of a dark pattern.

[Mithaldu]

I believe the screenshot is what you get when you did not cancel the scheduled upgrade and the process starts in earnest.

Note the very nice video in there.

[overgard]

How many dumb windows pop up all the time that you close out without really considering? I'm constantly getting "Apple Software Update", "Java needs updating", "Adobe creative cloud needs updating" and about 4000 other irritating update windows. Nobody carefully reads those because nobody has time for that many distractions.

[cm2187]

Intel wants to manage your wifi connection. The network drive was disconnected (no shit, I just woke up the machine!).

[mavhc]

If people could read we'd live in a completely different world, run by people elected by voters because it was in their best interests; where no one clicked a EULA, because the contents of them are insane; and no one bought the extended warranty.

[sundvor]

'll most likely be downvoted for this, but whilst I sympathise with the plight of those being auto upgraded at inconvenience a small part of me thinks that those users who cannot be bothered to read the important OS information notices, are the ones who may need the upgrade the most.

As parent (+1'ed) notes, the message itself is quite clear in its intent. I would not for a second think that closing the window would infer the "cancel path" as the result.

Yes, they are being too forceful, and Microsoft ought to have given users a clear "I do not want to upgrade, ever" option, yet at the same time Windows 10 represents a significant increase in security, and in these days of massive botnets and what not that is a good thing on a big scale. In a roundabout way, I'm picturing this as forced immunisation for the greater good.

[codedokode]

> Windows 10 represents a significant increase in security

Is that really so? It seems that last 20 years Microsoft just plays whack-a-mole game closing endless vulnerabilities instead of designing a better architecture that would not allow such things.

For example in Windows any app has full access to a device. The user can run any app written by anyone just by clicking a link on a web page or mail message. In Android these problems are partially fixed and in iOS the user is unable to run malicious applications at all.

[Mithaldu]

I have no idea whether you're being sarcastic or earnest, but the post is funny either way. Describing "the user has a high amount of control over their own personal machine" as a problem is new. :)

[codedokode]

No, I was not sarcastic. Many users are happy with being unable to run unsigned apps or listen to pirated music if it makes their devices secure.

[Mithaldu]

I agree with that on the principle that it's a nice thing to have if it's optional. And amazingly enough, Windows 10 actually does have that: http://i.imgur.com/XV4Hpwd.png

[codedokode]

It depends on how this is implemented. Is it enforced on a kernel level? What if some application, like browser or email client still allows starting an unsigned .exe file? Is Windows Store protected from publishing malware? Is there real privilege and access separation for different apps?

[Mithaldu]

I'm on the edge about agreeing that this is a good thing, but you're right. Due to the long history of people ignoring updates and then blaming MS for when they get hit by the latest 0-day, parts of MS are probably feeling very antagonistic against some of their users at this point.

[ino]

Win 10 is not a security update.

Microsoft is committed to security updates on Win 8.1 until 2023.

[sundvor]

Yet Windows 10 contains significant improvements to the security model:

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/...

[Mithaldu]

Feeling antagonistic also often results in irrational actions.

[makecheck]

While security is a good goal, surely you can agree that they could have (and should have) rolled any major security updates into a small, free OS update for that purpose alone? They didn’t have to simultaneously revamp the entire UI, replace default programs with less-useful versions, etc.

[sundvor]

True, I don't understand Windows enough to know whether all the changes in https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/... could have been easily / practically done as a service pack* though.

Edit: *Especially for Windows 7.

[cwyers]

> The only way a user would be surprised about that is if they didn't read the message in the first place.

Users don't read anything. They take whatever action is the quickest way to get rid of the dialog box they aren't interested in so they can do what they actually wanted to do with the computer.

[Mithaldu]

Thank you for reading the whole comment. :D

[codedokode]

The user did not request an upgrade. Microsoft uses dark patterns because in fact it is only Microsoft who needs upgrades to protect their future profits.

[endemic]

Ah yes, the ol' "blame the user" technique!

[makecheck]

This is what a simple and honest upgrade message might look like:

“A major system update is available for your computer; for more information on Windows 10, please go [here]. IMPORTANT: In addition to changing Windows, this update could also require you to find and install updates for other programs on your computer.

What would you like to do?

[Upgrade Now] [Upgrade Later] [Do Not Upgrade]”

No marketing-speak, no crap about how many other people have been affected by the virus-er I mean upgraded, all they needed was to be straightforward with users. Why was that so hard for Microsoft to do?